P.S. If you feel that anti-gay discrimination is too serious to joke about (and it is, in some places): then please re-think your willingness (if any) to excuse Islamist dictatorships, and/or your opposition to gunrights.

Whereas liberal gays are muttering about Christians who oppose gay marriage for whatever reason, and saying of those who say they are being persecuted, “You ain’t seen nothing yet.” Again, the usual refrains of, “They don’t know what real persecution looks like,” “They’ve done it for centuries,” “I think God should kill some Christians.” Besides the idiocy of the last one, the message I’m getting is that turnabout is fair play. I just hope they are so mindful of that the next conservative backlash hits. Which, hopefully, will be soon.

Persecution is any program or campaign to kill, expel, or subjugate a group based on their faith, ethnicity, or views. When an member of the armed forces can be reprimanded or relieved of duty for saying he does not support gay marriage, but WILL STILL TREAT HIS TRAINEES EQUALLY REGARDLESS OF THEIR VIEWS, how is that not persecution? Liberal gays will not be happy until anybody and everybody who has any objection to them and their behavior has been fined, ostracized, jailed, or generally terrorized into submission and silence. Only then, I guess, will they call it persecution. And then, only to say, “They deserve it.”

I’m not surprised that you completely missed the point of the Onion article, Rusty. It points out that “anti-gay discrimination” has come to cover anything short of every person you run into celebrating your homosexuality. In short, the gay enclaves and stretches of uninhabited land in the Pacific the article mentions. It’s mocking the gay left’s obsession with being completely and fully accepted.

WRT the marine: I thank him for his service and consider him a hero for his sacrifice, but I have to question just how likely it is that he would lose his job over his sexuality. And I have to wonder if there is not an ulterior motive to this bill to force Christian groups and individuals to violate their consciences or be silent about their views. The boos may have been a little much, but considering what is being done in this country and around the world for “justice,” like fining people who don’t want to participate in gay marriages, reprimanding them for mentioning that they don’t support gay marriages, and arresting priests for proclaiming the teachings of their religion, I’m not sure I can blame them for getting upset with him as a supporter of forces that want to give them trouble. Besides, he’s a big boy. He can take care of himself.

I read it, Rusty. If he decides to support a bill that those people think will make things difficult for them, and then say what basically amounts to, “You don’t love God as much as I do, and God loves me more than he loves you, na na na-na na,” you should be prepared for some backlash. And considering that leftists like to make death threats and throw jars filled with blood, urine, and feces at people who oppose them, boos and hisses are down-right respectful. If he had had the temerity to question the motives of gay marriage supporters or mention the harassment of traditional marriage supporters and Christians in the military due to the repeal of DADT, he would probably get getting jars of HIV-infected blood and semen chucked at him.

According to the New York Times, Lively, in addition to these talks, met with Ugandan lawmakers to discuss the now infamous anti-homosexuality legislation colloquially known as the “Kill the Gays” bill, which in some circumstances would institute the death penalty for homosexual acts. Still, Lively later reportedly said he doesn’t support a bill that includes the death penalty.

The California-based pastor has argued for the criminalization of homosexuality at least since 2007, when he wrote an open letter to the Russian people calling for them to make it illegal. The anti-gay propaganda law that has generated significant outcry in recent weeks is along the lines of what Lively envisioned in the letter.

“I personally have been in attendance where Dr. Scott Lively speaks on the issues of sexuality. He is courteous, biblical, and loving toward anyone who is not following chaste biblical living. He relates his many years of persecution by those who disagree with him. He tries to bring people to Christ for the salvation of their souls. He is once more a victim of an ideology which demands total submission to its agenda, this time in the form of the judiciary.

“In ancient Rome, rather than kneel before the false gods of the Romans, Christians were stripped of their power, their possessions, their freedom, and finally their lives. In the United States of the year 2013, Christians like Dr. Lively once again refuse to bow down to the false gods of lust and homosexuality and refuse to offer them the ignoble sacrifices of ‘equality,’ ‘rights,’ ‘justice’ and ‘fairness’ that they demand. In this 21st century of the end times,

“Dr. Lively shows fidelity to the Lordship of Jesus as the way to salvation, and he witnesses this through his martyrdom. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Christian faith. God bless you, Dr. Lively. We Christians stand with you.” – Father Richard Perozich, of the Archdiocese of San Diego, in a message to Renew America.

As part of a national journalism conference on Tuesday, August 20, America’s Survival, Inc. (ASI), a public policy organization, is officially releasing a new report on radical changes at Fox News that should cause great concern to pro-family conservatives.

“Pushing Sean Hannity out of the 9:00 p.m. slot, to make way for pro-homosexual advocate Megyn Kelly, is another sign of the channel’s left-ward drift and decline,” said ASI President Cliff Kincaid, a veteran journalist and media critic.

One man, Rusty. That’s all you can dig up. A man who is basically on the level of the WBC in terms of criticism from other Christians. Whereas there are also ministers and preachers who are becoming accepting or at least more tolerant of homosexuals, if not necessarily their actions. When the leadership of the largest Christian denomination in the world has said that homosexuality should not be a criminal offense, it kinda takes the winds out of your argument that Christians are homophobic.

But tell me, Rusty? When will you be happy? When every Christian denomination in the world has doctrines that permit and even affirm your sexual activities? When anybody who does not want to celebrate you is imprisoned? When parochial schools are forced to teach things counter to the doctrines of their faith, and hire people who openly defy the teachings of their employers’ faith?

If that’s the case, then you are the reason that people are resistant to anti-bias laws and gay marriage. When Massachusetts can force the Catholic Church to close its orphanages because giving kids to same-sex couples would be a sin on the part of the people running the orphanage, then I support them instead of you.

That priest does not speak for the Archdiocese of San Diego, Rusty. Funny how you liberals think one priest can speak for an entire religion. Especially when liberals have used renegade priests to show that the Catholic Church is okay with gay marriage. So which is it? You can’t have it both ways.

So he brings up one soldier who was honestly pretty rude, one preacher that many who agree with him in general on gay marriage would probably consider extreme in his views on the treatment of homosexuals, one priest who supports said preacher who does not speak authoritatively and who may or may not know of this preacher’s more radical beliefs, and one group that I’ve never even heard of. On that evidence, we are to believe that all Christians who do not conform to his Liberal Land ideal and all conservatives are the spawn of Satan and should be legislated into silence or jail.

I find the nascent persecution of traditionalists in our military especially troubling. I remember when the debate over repealing DADT was going on. The “conservative” gays here supported repeal almost unanimously, with Dan insisting that the only concern was military readiness and that repeal wouldn’t hurt that. Now, 2 years later, the harassing, intimidating, and penalizing of “anti-gay” military personnel has begun, and (most) “conservative” gays here and elsewhere don’t seem to give a damn. Why? Because they knew this was going to happen and wanted it all along. Same as their leftist counterparts, “conservative” gays want all opposition to their lifestyle eradicated from EVERY segment of and institution in society. Repeal of DADT opened the door to that goal in the military and “conservative” gays couldn’t be happier.

Seane-Anna I myself am one of those “conservative gays,” though I self-identify as an “androphile” due to my distaste for much of gay culture. Of course, my politics would probably get me lynched in the Castro as a category traitor. I had mixed feelings about DADT: on the one hand, I hoped that it would create a space for young homosexual men who wanted an alternative to the effeminacy of mainstream gay culture and to form bonds of brotherhood and trust with other men. On the other hand, I was worried that it would open the doorway for a liberal takeover of the military. It seems that the latter is becoming a reality, and I am livid about it. Granted, it is a recent development, so I’m not surprised that Brace and Daniel haven’t discussed it yet. I expect them to discuss it, though: I advise them to give Fox News Insider a look and wander back two or three days to find the story.

I realize that many Americans have religious objections to what I want. I am fine with that, even though I have a different theological view on the matter. I am, however, willing to fight for your right to disagree with me, provided you allow me to live the life I want, quietly and without giving scandal and offense. Of course, I am almost certainly unique on my views: if I know anything about the gay community, it’s that nothing short of total and unreserved acceptance and celebration will do for them.

Has it ever occurred to you that the extremes at the outer fringes of the “diversity” rainbow are in direct opposition to one another?

A man once advised some local zealots to let the one among them who is without sin commence the stoning of the woman they were all condemning.

You have brought some extreme opponents of the gay life to our attention. Is there no counterpart among those in the gay life to put forth as similar zealots? Is a zealot vs. zealot as deep as the argument goes?

For all your efforts, it appears that you want the world scrubbed of those who offend your gay sensibilities before you will consent to anything resembling a reasonable discussion of differences of opinion. You mirror Obama in the casting blame and shunning responsibility department.

The first step of problem solving is to identify the problem.

Niall Ferguson’s book,The Great Degeneration, looks at how representative government, the free market, the rule of law and civil society made our country great.

Ferguson examines how the Constitutional contract we made for ourselves and our posterity has been smashed by smothering our children and grandchildren with national debt they can not possibly repay. Our free market has been micromanaged with complex and contradictory regulations and taxes that have sapped them of their energy and ingenuity. Supposedly, the representative government supported the free markets, but the statist social engineering has debilitated them, instead. The rule of law has been taken over by the law being ruled by lawyers. The civil society has been demagogued into opposing camps where people like you come throwing slime only to divert the discussion and promote uncivil society and those who protest the further degeneration of the country are pilloried as Neanderthals. You and your lib pals are lazy wastrels who want everything adjudicated by the government and expect more rules and regulations to create the society you most want around you.

In the process of all of this, you libs have become negligent and complacent. You take no personal responsibility for even your own civility. Your Oprah goes whining on television about some perceived slight she received when being “denied” a chance to fondle a $38,000 pocketbook in a bazillionaire boutique. Your lib media plays that stupidity as if it is equal to or more important than the Muslim Brotherhood killing Copts and burning Christian churches in Egypt. And the complacent sheeple know all about Oprah’s gripe and nothing about Egypt and how the Mocha Messiah set the mess in motion when he went flirting with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Your complacency is due to being mind-numbed by the grievance lobby that has arisen to make mountains out of not just molehills, but perceived molehills. You have become degenerate enough to join the fray and go posting bits and pieces of stuff that do not move the conversation an inch forward.

St. Lactantius was an advisor to Constantine, the first Christian Roman emperor. Lactantius advised us: “The first point of wisdom is to discern what is false The second (is) to know what is true.”

Perhaps you should spend a little more time looking at the core of the problem and identifying it before you start off on your blitz of linking to non sequiturs.

Many gays, it seems, want a world in which there is no negative exception taken to how they settle their drive for sexual gratification.

Perhaps, Rusty, you can make a virtue of lust. If so, bring it on. Perhaps you can make a case for lust being benign and therefore neither a virtue nor a vice. If so, bring it on. Perhaps you can make a case for gay sex to be something other than sexual gratification. If so, bring it on. But, if you find that you are stymied in making any or all of these cases, perhaps you can propose a plan whereby a civil society tolerates the differences between gays and heterosexuals.

Are you too complacent to care? Have you grown so used to the sliding standards of moral relativity and situation ethics that you don’t even think about where the uncivil society is taking us? That is to say, have you taken stock of yourself in terms of degeneration and where you would draw the lines? Or, are you so dedicated to hedonism that you can find pleasure in just about anything?

I really don’t want to know the answers. I just want you to have a one on one with yourself.

I recognize the natural law arguments as to why homosexuality is a sin. However, and I can only answer for myself, I cannot see the sin in enjoying the natural beauty of men, unless it is the sin of idolatry. If it is sin, I ask that God forgive me, for I was carried away by the perfection of His work. And I also cannot see how any desire or relationship that could lead to me to lay down my life for a friend, which Jesus called the highest love, can be sinful, unless it is sinful in that I have loved excessively, as Dante defined lust. If it is sin, I ask that God forgive me, for I overstepped the bounds of virtue for the love of a friend.

On the other hand, I confess the debauchery and decadence of the gay community. I reject it, even as I as attracted to it. I want not two men, nor three, nor four, nor drugs nor orgies nor parades. Just one man to call a man after my heart, one man dearer to me than any woman.

This is my justification: that I cannot see the sin in what I seek. If there is sin, may God give vision to my eyes, and grace and mercy to my soul. I ask neither celebration or approval, only prayers. I intend neither to deceive or give scandal. I seek only what is good for myself and another. If I do wrong, God forgive me, I do only what I think to be right. If I imperil his immortal soul, I beg God mercy on his behalf and offer to take his punishment on myself.

I find the nascent persecution of traditionalists in our military especially troubling. I remember when the debate over repealing DADT was going on. The “conservative” gays here supported repeal almost unanimously, with Dan insisting that the only concern was military readiness and that repeal wouldn’t hurt that. Now, 2 years later, the harassing, intimidating, and penalizing of “anti-gay” military personnel has begun, and (most) “conservative” gays here and elsewhere don’t seem to give a damn.

Yes, because the real passion behind repealing DADT and imposing gay marriage was never really about “equality.” it was about sticking it to Christians. Persecuting objectors for their “thought crimes” was a natural and predicatable consequence. Because, as a rodeo clown in Missouri showed us, the left has zero tolerance for criticism.

I never wanted this, V. In fact, I won’t be terribly upset if the military and the Republicans decided that DADT should be reinstated to stop the growing persecution. Blame me and others for being a gullible fool if you want. But the bulk of the blame lies with the military brass who want to ingratiate themselves to their Washington overlords.

Yet Francis made worldwide news this week for saying the most Christian of things: “Who am I to judge?” He told reporters, “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has goodwill,” don’t judge him. The New York Timescalled this “revolutionary.” Time magazine said the statement “will send shock waves through the church.” The Week asked, “Is Francis the most liberal pope ever?”

Sean, if only the gay rights movement and the gay community were made up of people like you, people who want TOLERANCE so they can live their lives in PEACE and who have no interest in forcing every person and institution in society to celebrate their sexual lifestyle…or else.

When I was a kid two men lived in a corner house on a street not far from my home. I past that house whenever I walked home from school. Their yard and house were always neat and clean. Everyone in the neighborhood knew the two men were a couple but they were never harassed, even though the neighborhood folks were socially conservative, Black Christians who didn’t approve of homosexuality. Nevertheless, the two men were left alone. They were treated with tolerance. That’s how it should be.

Tolerance doesn’t require redefining marriage, indoctrinating schoolchildren behind their parents’ backs, or punishing anyone who declines to participate in promoting homosexuality. All it requires is letting homosexuals “…live the life [they] want, quietly and without giving scandal and offense.” I and, I truly believe, most other traditionalists are more than willing to do just that…if only the gay lobby would let us.

Rust, “those with ears ought to listen.” Read Francis’ full remarks for yourself, and not the hysterical recollections of the liberal media. He was referring to priests in particular, not the nebulous “someone” you refer to. In addition, he was referring to homosexual priests who are celibate. As in, following the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. It is surprising to hear a pope say it, but it is hardly a shock. He has not said that homosexual acts are acceptable in any context. He has said that gay marriage is “a lie from the Father of Lies” and has sparred with the President of Argentina over his “medieval views.” Read what he has said and tell me if I am wrong.

Liberals so desperately want the first pope of Latin America to be a liberal, they will twist his words until he is one in their eyes. Pope Francis is not going to overturn 2013 years of Church doctrine for the sake of people who support an idea 2.5% of the Church’s age. In no way can I see him justifying it theologically, and he will not because embracing homosexuality will deeply harm Catholic unity with the Orthodox, who will definitely never go for it, will greatly hamper Catholic mission work in the Muslim world, who will never embrace Western-style homosexuality, and will hurt the Catholic image in Latin America and Subsaharan Africa, two regions that the Church may well flee to if the West becomes too hostile or falls to Islamic influence.

If you think he is “gay okay,” you are a bigger fool than I thought. Do a little critical independent thinking, for God’s sake.

Thank you for your understanding. I know for a fact that there are men and women who would echo my thoughts, but they are either too isolated from each other to make unite or aren’t aware that there are people with similar ideas. If we could unite, we would certainly present a much different face of gay people. You may even know a couple, they just aren’t vocal about it.

Maybe, someday, we can get “gay culture” to the point where we are simply a group of men (and a counterpart group of women) who are outwardly no different from the rest of society, with that one thing setting us apart. But it will take time, time that we may not have. But I’ve convinced at least one person today day that we’re not all like “them,” so I’m happy.

I know this isn’t a religious blog but something needs to be cleared up. “Judge not lest ye be judged” was NEVER intended to mean that we could jettison God’s standards for right and wrong, good and evil, moral and immoral. Upholding God’s standards as He defines them in His Word is NOT judging. Jesus Himself upheld God’s standards in all things. Judging is when we impose our own standards about right and wrong on people, especially when we consistently fail to apply those standards to ourselves. Think about it. If we can’t judge then why is it ok for gay activists to call their opponents bigots, haters, and Nazis? Isn’t that judging?

Satire is a genre of literature, and sometimes graphic and performing arts, in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement. Although satire is usually meant to be funny, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon and as a tool to draw attention to both particular and wider issues in society

“Judge not lest ye be judged” was NEVER intended to mean that we could jettison God’s standards for right and wrong, good and evil, moral and immoral.

Comment by Seane-Anna — August 18, 2013 @ 7:09 pm – August 18, 2013

The admonition simply means this: if one is going to be judged by a certain set of standards, then one must be willing to be judged by those exact same standards.
It doesn’t mean, as idiots like Rusty (and the screeching hordes of liberals and leftists) keep trying to twist it, that ‘judgments’ which are critical or indicate disapproval are not allowed.
The U.S. Constitution isn’t the only precious document these bastards have been subverting; they’ve been rewriting the Christian bible for decades now.

Sean @34, you’re welcome and if I could make a suggestion, I think you should seriously consider starting a group or organization of some kind with other gays like yourself. I think you would be good at that and it definitely would be good for the well-being of civil society and the survival of freedom in our country.

Yet Francis made worldwide news this week for saying the most Christian of things: “Who am I to judge?” He told reporters, “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has goodwill,” don’t judge him. The New York Timescalled this “revolutionary.” Time magazine said the statement “will send shock waves through the church.” The Week asked, “Is Francis the most liberal pope ever?”

Comment by rusty — August 18, 2013 @ 6:33 pm – August 18, 2013

So what, rusty?

Is this going to make you respect him?

Is this going to make you stop flinging invective at Catholics?

Is this going to make you grow a spine and stand up to bigots you personally know like Dan Savage?

If the answer to this is no, then your words are meaningless.

But we know exactly why you’re quoting them, which EssEm phrased beautifully on another thread:

It’s a foolish game only foolish people play. And The Most Foolish People On The Planet are its major players.

Comment by EssEm — August 16, 2013 @ 9:03 am – August 16, 2013

You take Christians for fools, rusty. You have nothing but contempt for us, our belief system, our morality, and our values. You see us as weak and pathetic fools who won’t say anything as you scream at us and to whom you can do whatever you like.

At this point, I think we are ready for Christians to start treating gay bigots like you the same way that Muslims would if you insulted them similarly.

Because, rusty, until that is done, it will never stop. Pigs like you and your fellow liberals are indecent, destructive animals who understand nothing but pain and will not stop trying to hurt others until it is made clear to you that any attack on them will be signing your own death warrant.

You have made it clear, rusty, that you will not stop, nor will you restrain your bigots like Dan Savage until you are threatened physically. And you are going to get what you so desperately desire. People are sick of you, sick of Dan Savage, sick of Barack Obama, sick of the lies, the ranting, the duplicity, the theft, the immorality and bigotry, and their own government being used to punish them.

Excuse me, but I have had enough. There is nothing good to be said about the anti-gay nutcase, Scott Lively, the author of the “Pink Swastika”. the following is from Wikipedia:

Scott Douglas Lively is an American author, attorney and activist, noted for his opposition to LGBT rights and his involvement in the ex-gay movement. He is the president of Abiding Truth Ministries, a conservative Christian organization located in Temecula, California,[1] and the former state director of the California branch of the American Family Association. Lively has called for the criminalization of “the public advocacy of homosexuality” as far back as 2007,[2][3] and is involved in pending anti-gay legislation in Uganda.[4]
Lively formed Watchmen on the Walls, an evangelical ministry, in Riga, Latvia.[5]

According to a January 2011 profile, Lively “has not changed his view that gays are ‘agents of America’s moral decline’, but has refocused his approach to fit his flock in Springfield, Massachusetts” and “is toning down his antigay rhetoric and shifting his focus to helping the downtrodden.”[6]
On August 14, 2013 a federal judge ruled that the case against Scott Lively, by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) on behalf of Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG), a Uganda-based coalition of LGBTI rights and advocacy groups, can move forward against him. This is a first-of-its kind case in which the lawsuit alleges that Lively’s actions over the past decade, in collaboration with certain Ugandan government officials and Ugandan religious leaders, are responsible for depriving LGBTI Ugandans of their fundamental human rights based solely on their identity, which is the definition of persecution under international law and is deemed a crime against humanity. This effort resulted, most notably, in the introduction of the notorious Anti-Homosexuality Bill — widely known as the “Kill the Gays” bill — which Lively allegedly helped engineer. “[7]
The Pink Swastika[edit source | editbeta]

Along with Kevin E. Abrams, Lively co-authored the book The Pink Swastika, which states in the preface that “homosexuals [are] the true inventors of Nazism and the guiding force behind many Nazi atrocities.”[8]
The premise of Lively and Adams’ book has been heavily criticized as a “pernicious myth”,[9] “utterly false”[10] and “a flat-out lie”,[11] and several historians have questioned the book’s claims and selective use of research.[9][12][13][14][15]

I have heard many gays and lesbians on this forum whine about that the gay left is doing nothing about horrible treatment of gays in other countries. Well, conservative friends, they are doing something about the Mr. Lively. I guess we are supposed as gay conservatives we are just supposed to sit on our collective rear ends and wish for the good old days of the 1950s to return, when gays and lesbians knew their “correct place” in society. If that is anyone’s definition of being a “Gay Conservative”, I am no gay conservative.

SC, I never supported this man. I mentioned him once and referred to him as an extremist. Then I spoke about a priest who had supported him and said, “maybe he doesn’t know about the extreme stuff.” You know, innocent until proven guilty.

If you think for a second that I support this man, you are wrong. But if you think that using sympathizers in Washington, Hollywood, and the media to cow anybody who merely disagrees with us, then you are wrong as well. I refuse to accept freedoms at the cost of other people’s freedoms, even if it is their freedom to say things I find distasteful.

I guess we are supposed as gay conservatives we are just supposed to sit on our collective rear ends and wish for the good old days of the 1950s to return, when gays and lesbians knew their “correct place” in society. If that is anyone’s definition of being a “Gay Conservative”, I am no gay conservative.

I am a conservative. I am a heterosexual. Therefore, I can not speak as or for a gay conservative.

However, gays and heterosexuals live in the same United States and under the same rules and laws. There is no civil right that can be extended to an act of sexual gratification. Civil rights are extended to people, not acts.

If you disagree with that statement, kindly support your case.

SC.Swampfox tacitly refers to gays and lesbians being oppressed in the 1950’s. He posts the extremely purple prose on Wikipedia about Scott Douglas Lively who apparently in an anti-gay zealot. Is anyone surprised that such people as Lively exist?

Where is the connection between the existence of Scott Douglas Lively in 2013 and alleged gay suppression of the 1950’s? This appears to me to be little more than a Chicken Little effort to get everybody’s knickers in a bunch.

What is the single distinguishing characteristic that separates two women living together in peace and harmony and two women living together in peace and harmony and engaging in sex with one another? (Hint: the act of sex.)

Therefore, what is the basic distinguishing characteristic differentiating heterosexuals and homosexuals? (Hint: the act of sex.)

This little zinger that seems to stick in Rusty’s craw: homosexual sex vs. necrophilia vs. bestiality. How are they the same? (Hint: each involves a particular form of sex act.) So, how does the society at large accept one and not the others? Or, why are two banned by society and one permitted?

But, it goes well beyond that. Gay people have been kept from the state benefits heterosexuals can obtain by marrying. Gays are not prohibited from marrying if they follow the state formula. But gays, understandably want to marry a same sex partner. So, the issue arises as to whether the cultural zeitgeist will permit the change in marriage definition.

But it goes beyond that. If gays are permitted to marry, it is the “obligation” of society of accept the law. But what if a bakery won’t accept the order for a wedding cake? Must the baker be reeducated and made to “respect” gay marriage?

At this point, SC.Swampfox and Rusty have “a lot of ‘splainin'” to do. They rail at the past and the zealots and unsavory, but logical comparisons and they whimper about being put back in chains on the plantation and being made to pick cotton and blah, blah, blah.

Why is it so hard for so many gays to be thoughtful about expressing the world they envision? Why is it such an incredible sticking point to acknowledge that being gay is entirely identified with the person’s way of sexual gratification.

When the little kid says: “Mommy what are gay people?” If the honest answer is to be given, how does mommy give an explanation without dealing with coitus vs. other arrangements?

So, I believe that a gay conservative is a guy who is oriented toward a relationship with another guy and the relationship includes sex. The conservative part of gay conservative brings that guy and me together on an intellectual level that does not include a sexual relationship.

But, I have often enough been advised that if I am not in accord with the gay agenda, I am a homophobe. In other words, if I have intellectual disagreements with parts of the gay agenda, I am anti-gay.

Go figure. Do gays want peace and harmony with the other 97% or do they just want their way? Obviously, it is the former for the vast majority. But it appears a lot of gays have thin skins based on “feelings” and haven’t thought things through very much.

Well, V the K, you can just get in your time machine and go back to the 1950s.

Heliotrope, I am homosexual. I did not ask to be one. I don’t expect you or everyone to understand that particular fact or even accept it. It is just THE FACT. Also, United States Constitution was created to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Mental health experts around 1973 removed homosexuality from the DSM I. Many on the far right claim that their mental health experts were bullied into doing so. Well, they are free to make their outrageous claims. But the mental health professionals knew what they hell they were doing ……… the right thing.

The best thing we all can do is move on and hope that being homosexual is further accepted by our society……….and, that two people of the same sex can live openly together everywhere in this country in a monogamous sexual relationship.

Heliotrope, it is a sad fact that intellectual disagreement, no matter how well-argued, is tantamount to heresy to modern liberals. I’ve gotten cold looks from liberals when I voice my skepticism of the necessity of “gay marriage.” I personally favor the creation of a second institution that is designed for two individuals of the same sex in a fraternal, platonic, or sexual relationship. It would provide perks like joint property, combined taxes, power of attorney, and hospital visitation rights; the things even conservatives are willing to give. On the other hand, I would like to see marriage get a tune up: ending no-fault divorce would be a nice first step.

The Closet was not fun back in the 50s, V. Sure, people close to the individuals often knew or suspected, but public outing was problematic or even dangerous. I would prefer a situation where my relationship with the man I live with is quietly acknowledged, but not the center of attention: if somebody doesn’t ask, I don’t tell, but if somebody asks, I don’t want to be legally obligated to lie. An open secret, I suppose you would call it. As long as me and my partner aren’t being outrageous in public, like making out on the sidewalk and crap like that, I would like for us to be able to go around in public together. As long as I’m not getting chased out of town by a mob, nor having to watch people congratulate me against their will, I’m happy.

P.S. When did the whole “public display of affection” thing start? Even married couples used to be a little reserved in public. Again, they didn’t feel the need to trumpet it to the world, but it was still public knowledge that they were married. Did that all change in the 60s? It wouldn’t surprise me.

I was a kid in the 50’s and probably had gay friends and knew gay people but didn’t realize anything “different.” But I didn’t know anyone who was divorced, either.

Neither do I have any emotions about the closet or any angst of being gay, so I try not to judge a sensitivity about being gay too harshly. I am still put off a bit when someone feels it is necessary to tell me he is gay. I have an internal reaction of “that is information I don’t need.” I don’t care if the person is gay, I just don’t care to have the topic brought up as if it is important to know. I suppose that some lib can read all sorts of Freudian denial into that.

As a heterosexual, I would avoid a gay cruise in the same way I would avoid a largely singles cruise. I would imagine being uncomfortable with the meat market bazaar atmosphere.

There is a “gay culture” among the gay agenda crowd which includes an argot related to the culture, tacit references, codes and taboos. All “groups” have their inside cultures. That culture occasionally leaks out to the public square and often results in feathers getting ruffled and preening and strutting breaking out.

Gay pride parades confuse me. If it is OK to be proud of being gay, why isn’t it OK to be a proud heterosexual? Well, obviously, heterosexuals are considered the “norm” and gay is outside the “norm” and therefore, gays are victims and heterosexuals are oppressors. Or something.

@ #26, Sean posts a very thoughtful and unassailable response to some questions I posed to Rusty @ #25. Among Christians, God is the arbiter of sin and we are all sinners. Here I defer to a true expert.

There are moral relativists who speak with absolute authority to offset the people who interpret the Bible to undergird and “prove” their notions. How is that news? We begin at our daybreak and wend our way to our sunset striving, seeking and finding. Hopefully, we make this journey thoughtfully and attempting to live the Golden Rule.

No “in-yer-face carnal circus” by gays is going to outshout or upend the anti-gay crowd firing Bible verses like sunlight on Dracula. But the ” in-yer-face carnal circus” is far more colorful and noticeable to the general public than a pack of zealots hissing damnation. Somehow, the gay agenda P.R. seems grossly out of kilter.

Swampfox @45, you couldn’t be more wrong. The Constitution was NOT created to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. It was created to protect the GOD-GIVEN freedoms of ALL citizens from the tyranny of big government. And know this. Minorities can be as tyrannical as majorities. And “mental health experts” WERE bullied into removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. The removal was the result of a 1973 vote by the American Psychiatric Association, a vote brought on by 3 years of protests by gay activists, NOT by any new scientific discoveries. Get your history straight. And a question. If those mental health experts really were experts, then why didn’t gays accept their original position that homosexuality was a disorder? I mean, weren’t they EXPERTS? Gays like you pretend to be on the side of science but, as with the global warming crowd, you admire and praise science ONLY when you can make it agree with you.

When the little kid says: “Mommy what are gay people?” If the honest answer is to be given, how does mommy give an explanation without dealing with coitus vs. other arrangements?

I think an honest explanation/answer would be given in terms of love. That’s how my siblings explained it to their small children when they asked about their uncles ie, “your uncle David and Uncle R love each other like mummy and daddy”. I am quite certain matters of sex were never broached in those conversations. When they got older, I am sure they figured the rest out.

What is the single distinguishing characteristic that separates two women living together in peace and harmony and two women living together in peace and harmony and engaging in sex with one another? (Hint: the act of sex.)

Again, I suggest the distinguishing characteristic is love. None of my neighbors have a clue as to what goes on in our bedroom, but what they do know is we love each other.

Alva was the first American injured in the U.S. invasion of Iraq. He received a medical discharge and was awarded the Purple Heart. His prosthetic leg was visible Wednesday, under his khaki shorts. . .booed for his support of the anti gay discrimination ordinance in San Antonio

Major religious organizations supporting and recognizing their gay and lesbian folk

Our Kiwi friends in New Zealand supporting gay marriage.

Wow, just wow.

And David’s lovely example of Love and the simple explanation folk can pass on in keeping our journey true in honoring the Golden Rule.

Thanks for the comments. (Your block quote problem is not putting a “/” in the end of the quote box brackets. We all do it!)

I should have made it clear that the kid asking the question was of the age when the public schools would be stretching condoms over cucumbers and teaching about STD’s.

My main point is that how one accomplishes sex according to his preferences is an action and we do not give civil rights to actions. The freedom of speaking (an action) is not given to the words spoken but to the person speaking the words.

If two men live together in a house across the street from me, I do not have any interest in them other than as humans. If they are “married” I will absorb the information, but I am not interested in the least about their lives in private. Hopefully, they would understand my refusal to be involved if they asked me to help them promote some aspect of the gay agenda. My refusal would be based on not getting involved in their private lives, even if invited to do so.

Ah, now I see why you primarily communicate in links, Rusty. Your own thoughts are incoherent.

I saw the John Cena video. He seemed like he didn’t want to talk about it, but knew that some form of congratulations of affirmation was in order. Because that’s where we are in this country: forced to say verbally agree with the elite’s program. And you differ from medieval Europeans in that regard how?

Your 17 miles of “everybody likes me” is so small. As the comments on this post reveal, the land of “do what you want, but don’t bother me” is far larger, and more emotionally/mentally balanced.

The fact that you can’t see the satire in the Onion article is staggering, considering its a political satire website. Read “Animal Farm,” or “Nineteen Eighty-four,” or even “Candide” if you feel up to it. Notice that even countries where there is gay marriage aren’t included in the “non-discrimination” area. It is mocking the gay communities willingness to forsake every right they have in pursuit of their laundry list.

Yes, because I’m denied my rights to bear arms, speak my mind, follow the religion of my church, and petition my government for the redress of grievances, living here in rural Pennsylvania where people… really don’t care! Oh the humanity! Apathy is so much worse than persecution! Oh for a lynch mob, anything but people not caring!

Reality check, Rusty: for the most part, we homosexuals really don’t have it too bad.

David, even if they did invite him to their ceremony, would he be obligated to go? Would he be unable to decline? Could he say, “I have religious reservations, so I would feel uncomfortable, nothing personal”? Or would he have to say, “I have a conflict, sorry”? Does a Christian HAVE to go to synagogue if offered? Does a Muslim HAVE to go to Mass if offered?

Forcing somebody to do something because you want them to. Isn’t that the textbook definition of tyranny?

Sean, I guessed you missed the part about Cena acknowledging his gay brother and how he noted it was very difficult for his gay brother to come to terms within his clan.

From the Onion WASHINGTON—A new Pew Research Center report revealed Thursday that on the entirety of planet earth there exist only 17 square miles where gays are not systematically assaulted, slandered, or violently threatened for their sexual orientation.
Yes fabulous satire.

Glad you have a happy life in Rural PA. Some of my besties right here in the Emerald city are from PA, Collegeville

The reason I ask is we have a neighbor, a gentleman Heliotrope puts me in mind of, very erudite and always fascinating. In the 14 years we have lived on this block long street of a dozen houses, we have never dialogued out loud about our relationship with the assumption we all know what’s what. For our upcoming 30 anniversary, we are having a large party. Now it is our intentions to invite every one on our street, but is there a possibility this might cause offense or awkwardness?
This genuinely worries me. He and his wife have been to our home on several occasions, but because this is a personal celebration as opposed to a holiday party, I now have a concern. I know this man and his wife are very conservative. He, among other things, was an Ambassador under a President we all admire. We are going to invite them, but I would not want them to come because they felt they had to. I would not want anyone to be uncomfortable.

I would attend the wedding, take a gift and sincerely wish them a happy partnership. I would not hesitate to include them at a dinner party in my home where their personalities and interesting conversation could add to the depth and the quality of the evening.

They would know that like skin color, sexual orientation is neither a ticket nor an obstacle.

If you are having a “block party” to celebrate your 30th anniversary, it would be perfectly natural to invite the people on the block. Some people may have conflicts, but throw the party in an open spirit and don’t second guess those who may decline.

Trying to over-think things like this causes brain rot.

Happy 30th Anniversary. That from the guy who opposes the redefinition of marriage, but is always supportive of fellowship and love.

I have heard many gays and lesbians on this forum whine about that the gay left is doing nothing about horrible treatment of gays in other countries. Well, conservative friends, they are doing something about the Mr. Lively.

Indeed they are.

And it is interesting when you actually read that Wikipedia entry.

Lively has called for the criminalization of “the public advocacy of homosexuality” as far back as 2007,[2][3] and is involved in pending anti-gay legislation in Uganda.[4]

And then when you read farther down:

This effort resulted, most notably, in the introduction of the notorious Anti-Homosexuality Bill — widely known as the “Kill the Gays” bill — which Lively allegedly helped engineer. “[7]

So wild rhetoric aside, what you’re supporting is the prosecution of someone for vaguely influencing — although exactly how is never actually stated — a piece of legislation that isn’t even law.

In other words, a thoughtcrime. You are openly demanding the prosecution of someone for espousing a position you don’t like. You are stating that espousing a position you don’t like is the same as actually imprisoning, torturing, and killing someone.

Moreover, you do under dubious principles of international law that are NEVER applied to the government of Iran, to Hizbollah or Hamas, to the Palestinian Authority, to the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban, or any of the other Obama Party-approved governments that have in place as official policy and which have carried out the literal imprisonment, torture, and execution of thousands of gay people.

I guess we are supposed as gay conservatives we are just supposed to sit on our collective rear ends and wish for the good old days of the 1950s to return, when gays and lesbians knew their “correct place” in society. If that is anyone’s definition of being a “Gay Conservative”, I am no gay conservative.

Comment by SC.Swampfox — August 19, 2013 @ 5:34 am – August 19, 2013

You’re right, you’re not.

You openly advocate for and support the prosecution of people for thoughtcrime under what can only be described as extralegal and hypocritical justifications.

You see government and laws as nothing more than an instrument and means to punish the people you don’t like.

That is a sickness. It is the same sickness as Obama has. Just as Obama can justify siccing the IRS, DOJ, EPA, OSHA, and every other alphabet agency on anyone who dares oppose him politically, you intend to use the force of law to bring to heel anyone whose views you find objectionable.

You seriously do not respect the Constitution. You do not respect the basic underlying principles OF the Constitution. You see government solely as an instrument of selfish vendetta and power-seeking.

And then you have the temerity to state that anyone who doesn’t agree with your abuse of government for these purposes is self-loathing.

You don’t have an identity outside your sexual orientation. And frankly, I can see why; you’re making it clear that being gay is the only thing you think you have of value, and you are going to use government to force everyone to agree with you.

And David’s lovely example of Love and the simple explanation folk can pass on in keeping our journey true in honoring the Golden Rule.

Comment by rusty — August 19, 2013 @ 3:21 pm – August 19, 2013

So rusty, which of your idol Dan Savage’s rants about wanting Republicans and Christians dead, attacking Christian teenagers, and claiming that all gay Republicans are “house f*gg*ts” and meth addicts falls within the bounds of the Golden Rule?

Or how about your LGBT community leader Michelangelo Signorile’s saying that gays who voted for Romney should be stripped of their right to vote and kill themselves?

Or which of your Barack Obama and Barack Obama Party’s insistence sthat Mitt Romney was a murderer, that Republicans want to put all gays in concentration camps and kill them, and that Republicans want to re-institute slavery qualifies?

It’s funny, rusty. You blather on about how everyone else should have to follow the Golden Rule, but then exempt yourself and your fellow gay and liberal bigots from ever being so constrained.

That is because you don’t care about the Golden Rule. You only care about your own selfish needs to con and manipulate others.

I’m sorry if I came off as confrontational, David. I certainly did not intend for it to sound that way, I was just trying to raise a point, a point that you seem to agree with me on. Heliotrope has summed up my thoughts on the matter nicely. Congrats on your relationship, I hope it keeps going strong! 🙂 I hope to enjoy a relationship that is just as long-lived!

And Rusty, The Onion also reported that Jesus Christ came down from Heaven after 9/11 and held a press conference, and they interviewed several of the highjackers as they were being tortured in Hell. I checked the Pew Research Center’s site, saw no such report. All their reports going back to the end of July are on the front page of the site. Are you really so gullible that you will accept whatever somebody tells you if it conforms to your world view without verifying it for yourself?

Oh my God people! Can we calm down the debate a little??? Getting a little unstable I should say. To those exploding about the whole marriage redefinition debate, I can sympathize with those who are opposed to it. I myself am in that category for mainly personal reasons. Though I don’t think government has the authority to be involved in it. Or at the very least, the federal government should just pull out. That means no more DOMA (I can take exception to state sovereignty protection). And especially no constitutional amendment. It sickens me almost as much as the Supreme Court unilaterally going the opposite direction. So midway solution for the time being is leave it to the states. As for DADT, I don’t much care for it looking back now though I do have concern about religious liberty protections in the military. Also to those accusing gay conservatives as no better than the left, please just stop it. They’re on our side on the overall grand scheme of issues so just steam off a little bit. And I’d like to also give a big shout out to Bruce Carroll (GayPatriot) for his work of trying to oust that Rockefeller leftist Lindsey Graham.

Seane-Anna @ 49 If you believe that homosexuality should then be in the DSM and is a mental disease, then all of us who are homosexual are mentally ill ……….. and should treated for our mental disorder. The fact is homosexuality should never have been in the original DSM!!!!! And, yes, gay groups within the mental profession did help to undo an injustice that was put upon people are homosexual ……….. period. When homosexuality was removed from the DSM psychiatrists and psychologists lost a huge stream of revenue. If you still wish to go and declare yourself an unhappy homosexual, you are welcome to pay to enter a reparative therapy center. But I am sorry to inform you that Exodus International is closing its doors after 27 years of trying to convert homosexuals into heterosexuals, because they say it can’t be done.

And, yes, there can be tyranny of the majority by the minority, it is called a dictatorship. Our Constitution was formed along with the first 10 amendments, which is called the Bill of Rights, to protect the freedom of the individual from the tyranny of the State. We don’t have a true democracy. In a true democracy there can be a tyranny of the majority over the recognized rights the individual.

Rusty, just go over to the Pew Research Center site and find the report for himself- if it even exists.

I totally agree that marriage should be left to the states, Jonathan, but I and others fear that gay marriage activists will take Robert’s “animus” line and use it to smear those who oppose gay marriage as bigots, even if they have legitimate issues with it.

SC, Seane-Anna did not say anything about making homosexuality a mental disease again. She was just pointing out that there was activism on the part of homosexual psychiatrists. And even if it was added back to the DSM, it would not be a death sentence. In this day and age, there is an active effort to remove the stigma of mental disorders. In the 50s, when mental health patients were submitted to indefinite confinement and corrupt clinics, being outed as homosexual was indeed very bad. But if we discover that there is indeed a psychiatric or neurological origin to homosexuality, we should not deny it and cling to the false hope of a genetic origin.

Friday satire – from The Onion
Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 3:54 pm – August 16, 2013.
Filed under: “Equality”,Humor,Social Issues
Report: There Only 17 Total Square Miles On Earth Where Gays Not Discriminated Against

P.S. If you feel that anti-gay discrimination is too serious to joke about (and it is, in some places): then please re-think your willingness (if any) to excuse Islamist dictatorships, and/or your opposition to gun rights.

If you click on the link in Jefff’s post you will find . . .

WASHINGTON—A new Pew Research Center report revealed Thursday that on the entirety of planet earth there exist only 17 square miles where gays are not systematically assaulted, slandered, or violently threatened for their sexual orientation

(Reuters) – New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie on Monday signed into law a measure to prevent therapists from counseling gay and lesbian youths to change their sexual orientation, making his the second U.S. state to ban so-called conversion therapy.

The state senate approved the measure in June, putting it on the desk of Christie, who is seeking re-election this fall and also widely considered a White House contender for the Republican Party in 2016.

Citing medical and psychiatric research that sexual orientation is determined at birth, the law bans state-licensed counselors, therapists and social workers from practicing a method of talk therapy that opponents have said is deeply damaging to the self-esteem and identity of gay youths.

ND30 you are welcome to join Scott Lively and his be a voice denouncing the gay rights movement and promoting the re-criminalization of homosexual acts. I am sure you would fit just right in. I don’t want the man, but I do want him exposed for the horrible man that he is.

Correction of #79
ND30 you are welcome to join Scott Lively and his be a voice denouncing the gay rights movement and promoting the re-criminalization of homosexual acts. I am sure you would fit just right in. I don’t want the man jailed, but I do want him exposed for the horrible man that he is.

Oregonians with a good memory for the bad-old days of the Oregon Citizens Alliance may remember Scott Lively.

Lively was one of the leaders of the anti-gay rights organization that pushed 1992’s Measure 9, which would have changed the state constitution to declare homosexuality as perverse and required schools to teach it was equal to pedophilia. Lively is also infamous for physically throwing a female photographer out of an OCA meeting; a jury later found he used unreasonable force against her.

Lively’s penchant for making enemies with his anti-gay views continues. According to the New York Times, a Ugandan gay rights group is suing Lively, accusing him of “violating international law by inciting the persecution of homosexuals.” Lively had lobbied the Ugandan parliament for an anti-gay rights bill in 2009.

Lively now runs the Holy Grounds Coffee Shop in Springfield, Mass., where his employment practices have raised eyebrows among the locals.

What is your point, rusty? Are you saying this is stone cold truth, or that they shouldn’t joke about this? Your parroting and your rhetorical incoherence are tiring.

SC, please show me where ND30 is supporting Lively? All I can see is that he’s pointing out your apparent blindness to the similarly vile garbage of individuals in the gay left. Has Dan Savage or Michaelangelo Signorile supported the kind of legislation Lively does? No. Would they? If they could get away with supporting a law that branded Christians and conservatives as worthy of death, I would say yes.

Swampfox. . .i stood in an audience once where Lively shared a podium with his cohort Lon Mabon back in the day. Will never forget the way he looked at me.

As well he should, rusty.

1992 was the height of the AIDS epidemic, with people dying left and right because “real gays” like yourself couldn’t be bothered to put on a condom or tell the truth about your HIV status.

Meanwhile, over in Uganda, hundreds of thousands of people were dying — a trend which was reversed and dramatically reduced by a sharp and concentrated campaign promoting abstinence, monogamy and fidelity, and condom use.

Are you even mentally capable of understanding that, rusty? You are looked upon with contempt because your behavior is worthy of contempt. The Ugandans do not live in the delusional fantasy world of the bigot gays like yourself who have rationalized away the death and destruction they inflicted on millions of people in the name of promiscuity. They see your Dan Savage telling people to engage in behavior that they know is lethal because neither you or he care how many people get sick and die in the process.

Has Dan Savage or Michaelangelo Signorile supported the kind of legislation Lively does? No. Would they? If they could get away with supporting a law that branded Christians and conservatives as worthy of death, I would say yes.

Comment by Sean — August 19, 2013 @ 7:45 pm – August 19, 2013

Actually, under Swampfox’s rules, their calling for the death of Christians and conservatives, as they both have, would constitute, quote, “depriving (Christian and Republican people) of their fundamental human rights based solely on their identity, which is the definition of persecution under international law and is deemed a crime against humanity”.

But of course, the intention was never to protect human rights; it was to silence and punish those people who Swampfox found objectionable.

ND30 you are welcome to join Scott Lively and his be a voice denouncing the gay rights movement and promoting the re-criminalization of homosexual acts. I am sure you would fit just right in.

Comment by SC.Swampfox — August 19, 2013 @ 6:50 pm – August 19, 2013

Yes, Swampfox; having been on this blog since its inception, I’m very familiar with your “Agree with me or you’re a self-loathing Jewish Nazi quisling meth addict” method of arguing.

At one point I used to care. But then I realized that you and your fellow users of this technique are saying these things for the sole purpose of manipulating people into doing what you want out of fear of being called them, and that you are going to keep saying them until I do what you want — regardless of any position I take on gay anything.

That is what turns it from meaningful criticism to naked, blatant abuse. You’ve crossed well over that threshold, and now should be seen as nothing more than a wannabe abuser who will say and do anything, no matter how vile, to get what he wants.

Congratulations, Swampfox. You now stand exposed as an abusive bigot like Dan Savage, like Joe Jervis, like Evan Hurst, like rusty, and like the rest of the gay left who you previously affected to despise.

Is this insane, irrational paranoia about ‘Theocracy’ the reason leftists feel compelled to persecute Christians?

Comment by V the K — August 19, 2013 @ 9:12 pm – August 19, 2013

No.

The “theocracy” is what leftists want to impose, and their persecution of Christianity is simply an attempt to remove all competition.

Leftists are power-mad, sick, deluded individuals without any conscience or morality. Simply look at rusty, who blathers on about the “golden rule” but then endorses and supports the vile hatemongering and bigotry of his LGBT community and Obama Party.

Oh, come on, that’s not fair, is it? I mean, look at how the Nazis treated Jews: They blamed all the problems in their society on them. They mocked them as intellectual and cultural inferiors. They made up hideous caricatures of them in their print and broadcast media.

Now, if the left starts treating Christians like that, then maybe we should be concerned.

In New York, the city’s openly gay mayor, Christine Quinn, along with her wife, is gunned down at a gay wedding. (In real life, Quinn is a mayoral candidate. I find the fictional assassination of a living politician creepy, at best.) In San Francisco, the Air Force bombs the Castro neighborhood, killing 12,000 people, mostly gay men.

Yeesh. Does that tinfoil ever itch their scalps? I bet not even SonicFrog finds that scenario credible.

ND30 your insanity amuses all who visits this site. I would hope that you would visit a psychiatrist.

Comment by SC.Swampfox — August 19, 2013 @ 9:40 pm – August 19, 2013

Of course, what ruins the effect, Swampfox, is that you don’t give the same advice or call insane those bigot gays like rusty who are pushing novels like the one V the K is citing — which might as well be considered The Protocols of the Elders of Zion – Christian Libeling Edition.

1992 was the height of the AIDS epidemic, with people dying left and right because “real gays” like yourself couldn’t be bothered to put on a condom or tell the truth about your HIV status. – ND30 at #83

You haven’t figured it out yet that I am SC.Charlie from HotAir, yet. I’m that virgin 62 homosexual……. the person who hasn’t had gay sex or heterosexual sex. I tried to pray the gay away for over forty years. I am the one who didn’t tell a soul that I was gay except for four people that I was gay before 2007, two psychiatrists and my parents. In 2007 I played Russian Roulette with a nine shot revolver for about three days before. Oh I cheated, but don’t ask me how in the hell I did fuck up and pull the trigger on a the one live round. I suffered what you call a major depression. Major depression with all the symptoms. I was a total mess determined to end my mental pain. In the month before I was committed I lost over 20lbs eating what I normally eat. But my anxiety and depression sped up my metabolism, so that I burnt an excessive amount of calories. Of course during this I was talking to my one brother and one of my three sisters on the phone. The only two siblings that live nearby. All they wanted me to do is go see another psychiatrist to get back on anti-depression medication. I had been on Paxil and just said what the hell, I want to get off it. Finally my brother and sister had me committed with my permission. When I got out of the hospital, I came out to my family and very few friends. It was the best thing that I did in my entire life. And, yes, there are a lot of things that I don’t like about the gay left. And, there are a lot of things that I don’t like about the far right anti-gay element in our society.

[Jeff adds: Good comment. As a general practice, please avoid profanity stronger than what you’d see on public television.]

The fact is homosexuality should never have been in the original DSM!!!!!

Really? Why is this a ‘fact’? What about PAedophelia? Sadomasochism? Please explain to me why one attraction is different than another? After all, those are in the DSM IV still for the same reasons and methodology the DSM III had homosexuality.

The actual fact is we don’t know why or how sexual attraction is wired and set up. Any more than we know why I’m left handed.

The actual fact is we don’t know why or how sexual attraction is wired and set up. Any more than we know why I’m left handed.

Silly The Livewire!

The great and powerful state can do anything through regulation and reeducation. What we need is a core curriculum that teaches the truth and a citizen corps (read: corpse) that will monitor the sheeple and report infractions among them.

Now, here is the rub. Will they report the gays and lefties or will they report the heteros and righties? When you take the bull by the tail and face the situation (W.C. Fields) you had better first check whose bullcrap hole you are facing. (Think: whose ox is being gored.)

Those who live by the gun totalitarian state, die by the gun totalitarian state.

After all, everything that begins is mystery, ends in politics. And it would be beyond all logic to assume that the DSM is not subject to an ocean of politics that dwarfs scientific theory.

Actually, Livewire, according to the DSM IV, paedophilia is *not* a mental illness as long as the pasedophile feels good about his paedophilia. It’s only a problem if the paedophile feels “distressed” about wanting to go Filner on a second-grader.

First, I offer my support and encouragement for continuing to the handle your struggles positively and wish you the peace and serenity for which we all strive.

Secondly, your struggles are none of my business in the political realm, but on the personal level I am rooting for you.

Thirdly, the “far-right anti-gay” element is not a fixed entity. There are plenty of far-right conservatives who are far from anything resembling anti-gay. And there are plenty of fundamentalist Christians who are not anti-gay. I wish we could stop hooking extreme conservatism with evil as an automatic qualifier aimed to disparage.

The demagogues on the left have done a terrific job of painting the far right as sexists, anti-gay, martinets who want to rule from the literal words of the Bible and organize society according to their prudish standards.

I am weary of all the concentration placed on the loons who grab the attention of the chicken littles who are in search of any evidence that feeds their fears.

Certainly gay baiting, bashing and murder have taken place. But they are as reprehensible to the general far right as they are to the far left or people between the poles.

“Dr.” Terry Jones plans to burn 2,998 Korans on 9/11 in Mulberry, Florida. (He raised a ruckus a few years ago over his plan to burn one Koran.) Maybe “Dr.” Terry Jones is far-right. Maybe “Dr.” Terry Jones considers himself a Christian. Maybe, in his own mind, “Dr.” Terry Jones is getting orders from God. But whatever the circumstances, he is staining the people of Mulberry, the far-right, Christians and general people of good will by his self-centered antics and pious righteousness. But, it is also incumbent on those he is attacking to be able to see him for the fool that he is and not use him as an excuse to seek out and murder Copts and burn down churches and launch attacks on every trace of “infidel” connected association and real-estate. Zealot vs. Zealot is not a recipe for peace and harmony.

Please remember that our country is extremely liberal in terms of the structure of government. Our right and left argue back and forth from a place on the far left of government possibilities. The leftists in our country warn of a shift to the totalitarian state of the right and the right sees the representative democracy where sovereignty is vested in the people being morphed into a controlling national government which takes our property and social engineers it out to people who didn’t earn it or have any natural right to it.

If you go back to Franklin Roosevelt, in which direction has the country been trending? To the “feared” right or the “social justice” left?

I keep up the drumbeat about the “gay agenda” because I don’t believe that the average gay who is upset with his “status” has a clue about what he wants and what would satisfy him. To quote Gertrude Stein, I think that the average gay agenda fan fits this to a “T”: “When you get there, you discover there isn’t any there there.”

Just maybe it is time for the gay agenda people to stop being obsessed with the status of being gay and just settle down and live a life. Just maybe the demons hiding under the bed are not as numerous and prevalent as some believe.

You will probably see less of the big A gay activists, but will see second string folk stepping up. . .parents, grandparents, children, bosses, co-workers, brethren from churches . . .all stepping up to the podiums of the Public Square to voice support for GLBT issues.

Rupublican Portman, hedge fund guru Paul Singer, the Cheney family, the Obamas, Jeff Bezos Amazon, Tim Cook Apple and it goes on and on all the way to PFLAG.

But this was interesting article from the search on reparative therapy

Writing for the Christian Century magazine, Randall Balmer EXPLAINS a developing change of course on the Religious Right:
The closing of the doors of Exodus International earlier this summer doesn’t just signal a sea change in evangelical thinking about homosexuality. It also highlights some evangelicals’ dubious claims of adherence to immutable convictions.
After 37 years, Exodus—which advocated “reparative therapy”—finally gave in to scientific evidence and changing cultural attitudes. In announcing the move, president Alan Chambers issued an extended apology. “I am sorry for the pain and hurt that many of you have experienced,” Chambers said, addressing the gay community.
(Snip)
Exodus and similar programs occasionally trotted out trophy success stories, gays who claimed to have been “cured.” But the reparative therapy movement suffered a greater number of recidivisms and embarrassments. Chambers, after announcing the cessation of the organization, acknowledged that 99 percent of those who endured gay-conversion therapy failed to shed their same-sex attractions. “There have been people that we’ve hurt,” he told the Exodus gathering. “There have been horror stories.”
Exodus also had to contend with changing cultural dynamics. A Gallup Poll in May 2013 found that 59 percent of Americans believe that lesbian and gay relationships are “morally acceptable,” an increase of 19 percentage points since 2001. And despite their protestations, evangelicals are not impervious to cultural change.
Case in point: divorce. When I was growing up as an evangelical in the 1950s and 1960s, divorce was considered the defining moral issue. Anyone who was divorced became a pariah in evangelical circles. Many had their church memberships rescinded; at the least they were shunned. I remember my mother telling me that our family could never support Nelson Rockefeller for president because he was divorced.
But evangelical attitudes changed with cultural trends. By the late 1970s, the divorce rate among evangelicals was roughly the same as the rest of the population, and evangelicals suddenly were forced to confront the issue. There was also this catalyst: the candidacy of Ronald Reagan, a divorced and remarried man, for the presidency. Religious right leaders were so eager to embrace Reagan that they brushed aside what would previously have been a disqualifying circumstance…
Evangelicals like to assert that, because of their fidelity to the Bible, their convictions are timeless. But this certainly is not the case. Generational transitions also play a role. As late as the 2008 presidential election, old-line religious right leaders like James Dobson and Chuck Colson insisted that the main moral issues were abortion and same-sex marriage. A younger generation of evangelicals, however, saw things differently, detecting a much broader spectrum of moral issues, including war, hunger and especially the environment. They have evinced little interest in matters of sexual orientation or in taking a stand against gays and lesbians.
No matter how vigorously they protest, evangelicals are swept along by cultural currents together with everyone else. “We’ve fought the culture,” Chambers declared in his valedictory address to Exodus, “and we’ve lost.”

heliotrope, thanks for your remarks. I am going to take a break from posting on Gay Patriot for awhile.

Rest assured that I am not going to become a member of the looney left, which assuredly does exist today. I am a staunch small government conservative. Always have been and always will be.

Indulge me and let me tell you about when I came out to my parents in 1969. I came out to my parents after being off to college for two weeks. It was a Saturday afternoon in September, one month after Woodstock. My Father was a physician in our small town. He had enough pull that I was able to see the only one psychiatrist in our small town within about two hours. I was depressed and suicidal at that time. That day I had to make a promise to my Father and the psychiatrist that I would not do any harm to myself. I guess if I did not make that promise at that time, I would have been committed. Well, I kept that promise. On the way home from the psychiatrist my Father said that he had failed me. I told him that he did not fail me. I continued to see that psychiatrist for about four more months, making trips back and forth from college. I could see it my parents eyes that each visit hurt them ……. parents whom I truly loved. One time I asked the psychiatrist if he could make me heterosexual. He honestly answered, saying that only maybe. Shortly thereafter, I stopped seeing him and decided to go back in the closet, hoping my homosexual illness (remember that in 1969 it was in the DSM as an illness) would somehow cure itself. That was probably the worst decision of my life. The last thing I needed to do was to not talk to anyone about what was causing my social anxiety, depression and reclusiveness.

Well, 1969 is not 2013. I had my major breakdown in June of 2007 after which I came came out to a select few. And, as I said before, I think that was the best thing happened in my life. Now, I have to get on living the rest of my life……. Now without the social anxiety which once plagued me. Homosexuality is no longer deemed to be a mental illness by the mental health experts. I am semi-out and don’t really give a damn if someone thinks I am gay or asks if I am gay. I only talk about my sexuality to a select few. I see my psychiatrist twice a year for thirty minutes, to talk to him and get prescriptions for Valium and Prozac. Neither drug I probably need anymore. Old habits are hard to break and I am still a semi-recluse. I live on a 246 acre farm in the middle of nowhere. As my small support group of friends and family say I need to get out more often, which I probably do need to do. What the future holds, I don’t know, but my quality of life is certainly much better.

Anxiety and depression are known to many of us and the cause is often hidden from discovery. You are who you are and “it is what it is” – I would encourage you to put any suspected “cause” of your battles aside and concentrate on fighting for your best case future. You have my best wishes for your strength and having the willpower to deal with your down times, if they arise. I express my wishes by prayer and you may count of them being there for you from a stranger far away.

1992 was the height of the AIDS epidemic, with people dying left and right because “real gays” like yourself couldn’t be bothered to put on a condom or tell the truth about your HIV status. – ND30 at #83

You haven’t figured it out yet that I am SC.Charlie from HotAir, yet. I’m that virgin 62 homosexual……. the person who hasn’t had gay sex or heterosexual sex.

There is ample space here for disagreement. There is none for abusive behavior such as rusty attempts. Many have tried, and the vast majority have been run off like scalded dogs.

If you feel the need to defend or support or make excuses for the gay and lesbian community’s idiotic, you will not be happy here — and especially not if your excuse is to blame “the right”. The vast majority of us here have heard quite enough of the gay community’s bigot leaders like Dan Savage and Michelangelo Signorile mocking everything for which our friends and families stand and calling for their deaths because they do not worship the Obama/LGBT cult, and will shove calling the people we know and love racists and bigots back down the throat of the people doing it to the hole they pulled it out of in the first place.

You will understand this place fully if you realize that here, right and wrong operate independently of sexual orientation. You won’t find that anywhere else in the gay and lesbian community. Anywhere.

Yes, many evangelicals Christians have been swept along by the culture, but that doesn’t mean the culture is right. It means those evangelicals are weak and cowardly.

Comment by Seane-Anna — August 21, 2013 @ 12:47 am – August 21, 2013

The parable of the sower.

That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the lake. Such large crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat in it, while all the people stood on the shore. Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. Whoever has ears, let them hear.”

Matthew 13:1 – 9

Case in point:

A younger generation of evangelicals, however, saw things differently, detecting a much broader spectrum of moral issues, including war, hunger and especially the environment.

ND30 you made a good comment @ 110. I must say, I don’t like your overly aggressive, confrontational style of writing. But it is your style and you probably can’t change. The conversation has moved on from this thread and is now on the subject of conversion/reparative therapy. Perhaps you can tone down your style just for awhile and let us all know what you think about Christie passing the law banning such therapy. Personally, I think it is a good law.

I hope that you enjoy living in gay friendly San Francisco. Where I live it is not so friendly and also I am not exposed to what I call the looney left on a daily basis, which is based in such places as San Francisco, New York, etc. I look forward to the day that gays and lesbians no longer have to pack up and move to gay friendly enclaves in order to live their lives. I’ve seen a lot of change in my 62 years and hope to live to see more positive change on gay issues before I pass on. I am getting my bucket list together and visiting San Francisco is on my list.

ND30, I have three sons of first cousins living in San Francisco. None are gay. All are in their thirties. None is currently married. One will be getting married in October. Two were raised by my very liberal female first cousin who won’t even turn her television to Fox News. Even though she as liberal as they come, she and I have great debates. One of her sons graduated from MIT and the other one graduated from Georgia Tech. They work together in the computer programing industry and are very highly compensated.

The other young man who lives in San Francisco graduated from Georgetown University and works with his brother who graduated from West Point, but he lives in Colorado with his wife and family. They work in the financial industry funding venture capital enterprises all over the United States. Both of them are certainly as conservative as myself. All four young men know about my breakdown in 2007. I’ve met them all since then a number of times, but I have not discussed my breakdown or my sexuality with any of these young men.

I must agree that Lively, repellant as certain of his views may be, cannot justly be prosecuted for expressing them. To prosecute him for expression/advocacy is to violate the First Amendment; or, as NDT puts it, to punish thoughtcrime. I abhor that.